ORDER : 1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.Kaa5/See.Ma.No.38/2023 and the earlier order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the second respondent Ni.Mu.No.A3/ 479/2023. 2. I have heard Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4, Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the fifth respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.M.P.Senthil, would take me through the averments in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the various documents filed along with the writ petition by way of typed set of papers and also the order impugned in the writ petition. He would contend that the land measuring 27.94 Acres at Melapalayam village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, originally belonged to one Lakshmana Thevar and his brother, viz., Ponnambala Thevar. The said Ponnambala Thevar and his legal heirs executed a sale deed in favour of his brother, viz., Lakshmana Thevar vide document No. 337/1961 dated 27.01.1961. After having become the absolute owner of the entire extent, Lakshmana Thevar has executed a settlement deed in respect of an extent of 4.04 Acres out of total extent of 5.38 Acres in favour of his son Appakutty Thevar @ Sudalaimuthu Thevar vide document No.679/1974 on 30.03.1974. The remaining extent of 1.34 Acres was owned by Sadamuni Thevar @ Sami Thevar. After the demise of Sadamuni Thevar @ Sami thevar, his son, viz., Sengalamudaiyar Thevar became the owner and the revenue records were also mutated in his favour. Subsequent to the death of Sengalamudaiyar Thevar, his legal heirs Esakkiammal and Avvaiyar became entitled to his property. The said Esakkiammal executed a registered mortgage deed in respect of undivided ½ share in favour of Lakshmana Thevar and the said Lakshmana Thevar, in turn made over the mortgage in favour of his son, viz., Appakutty Thevar @ Sudalaimuthu Thevar vide document No. 678/1974 dated 30.03.1974. Subsequently, Appakutty Thevar @ Sudalaimuthu Thevar made over the mortgage in favour the original owner Esakkiammal's husband, viz., Masana Thevar under a registered document No.446/1978 dated 12.04.1978. The first petitioner along with the second petitioner's wife, viz., S.K.Jarina and father viz., V.K.Mohamed Ghouse jointly purchased the above said properties measuring an extent of 5.38 Acres in and by registered sale deeds in the year 1997. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioners have mutated the revenue records in their name. The first petitioner along with the second petitioner's wife, viz., S.K.Jarina and father viz., V.K.Mohamed Ghouse jointly purchased the above said properties measuring an extent of 5.38 Acres in and by registered sale deeds in the year 1997. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioners have mutated the revenue records in their name. Subsequently, in the year 1998, the fifth respondent and his mother, viz., Meenakshiammal attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the portions of the property comprised in Survey Nos.59/1, 59/3 and 60/2 based on a sale deed dated 19.08.1930 registered as document No.2323/1930 and the settlement deed dated 27.02.1967 registered as document No.587/1967. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent as well as his mother, Meenakshiammal have no title to the subject lands and in order to avoid litigation, the first petitioner and his two partners, entered into a deed of undertaking dated 06.10.1998, in and whereby the fifth respondent and his mother Meenakshiammal accepted title of the first respondents and the other two partners and handed over the original documents in their custody. It is the further case of the petitioner that portion of the entire 5.38 Acres to an extent of 3.05 Acres was leased out by the first petitioner in favour of the As.Sathiw Educational Society for a period of 50 years. The case of the petitioners is that the Society has established a Women's College, viz., Annai Hajira Women's College, after getting proper approval from DTCP and the property is under the absolute possession and enjoyment of the said Society. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that all necessary permissions have been obtained and are in place in favour of the Society and even conversion of portion of property from residential use, into Educational use were also duly procured from the Government and the same was also reflected in the Melapalayam Detailed Development Plan of Tirunelveli Local Planning Area, which has been duly gazetted on 19.04.2006 in the Tamil Nadu Governance Gazette. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the attempts of the fifth respondent to interfere with the petitioners' possession was only to extract money. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the attempts of the fifth respondent to interfere with the petitioners' possession was only to extract money. He would further contend that the petitioners are also filed a suit in O.S.No.386 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, seeking to declare the title of the petitioners and also for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the parties were preferred to Lok Adalat and the power agent of the fifth respondent agreed to settle the matter and agreed to cancel the sale agreement dated 24.11.1998, acknowledging the title of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.M.P.Senthil, would therefore, contend that after having consciously waived all rights, if any, the fifth respondent had, after a lapse of 17 years, once again approached the second respondent, seeking patta by making a representation on 23.04.2021, on the strength of release deed dated 12.03.2021 executed by his sisters and the fifth respondent also moved this Court in W.P. (MD)No.10098 of 2021, seeking issuance of writ of mandamus. Pending the said writ petition, the second respondent in an by the impugned proceedings dated 30.05.2023 erroneously cancelled the patta standing in the name of the first petitioner as well as in the name of deceased S.K.Jarina and Mohamed Ghouse and therefore, ordered restoration of patta in the name of Sengalamudaiyar Thevar, Ponnambala Thevar and Thangamuthu Thevar. The petitioners aggrieved by the said order, preferred a revision before the first respondent. However, the first respondent modified the order passed by the second respondent holding that the petitioners have not proved title to an extent of 60 cents in and by the proceedings dated 30.08.2024, which is also challenged in the present writ petition. The first respondent held that the petitioners were entitled to 4.71 Acres and that the fifth respondent is entitled to 60 cents. 6. Attacking the findings in the said impugned order, the learned counsel would submit that the revenue authorities exceeded their power by going into issue of title and thereby usurped the powers of the civil Court and he would therefore contend that the findings of the first respondent that the petitioners were entitled to 4.71 Acres and the fifth respondent is entitled to 60 cents is clearly perverse and beyond the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. The learned counsel would also submit that the first respondent has not taken note of the various registered documents right from 1997 onwards and the title of the vendors' of the petitioners as well as various subsequent mutation of records, granting of permission re-classification of lands etc.. He would also contend that after lapse of 17 years, it is not open to the fifth respondent to re-agitate the issue and claim patta, the fifth respondent, power agent have already constituted a decree passed before the Lok Adalat in a suit. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the following judgments: (i) Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. Vs. The District Collector, 2011 (5) CTC 94 (ii) T.R. Dinakaran Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, 2012 (3) CTC 823 (iii) Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Ltd. Vs. R. Perumalswamy, 2021 (11) SCC 98 8. Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the fifth respondent would contend that there is absolutely no infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent and he would contend that the fifth respondent traced title to a registered sale deed dated 19.08.1930 in favour of the fifth respondent's grand father Thangamuthu Thevar and being the only successor, the fifth respondent's mother became entitled to the property and the petitioner's father had been settled the said property even in the year 1967. He would further contend that the taking advantage of illiteracy of the fifth respondent's mother, she was cheated by one Shahul Hameed and Alima Beevi and they created a fraudulent power of attorney in favour of Alima Beevi. The petitioners filed a declaration and permanent injunction suit in O.S.No.386 of 2015 against the power holder and the agreement holder, without including the fifth respondent. The said suit was settled in the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat award passed only on the strength of the submissions of the power agent, who held an agreement of sale and all this happened behind the back of the fifth respondent's mother and the sixth respondent. 9. The said suit was settled in the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat award passed only on the strength of the submissions of the power agent, who held an agreement of sale and all this happened behind the back of the fifth respondent's mother and the sixth respondent. 9. Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the fifth respondent would further contend that after the death of his mother Meenakshiammal on 31.01.2004 and his father on 11.01.2019, the fifth respondent's two sisters have executed a release deed in favour of fifth respondent, vide document No.2290/2021 and since patta was not granted to the fifth respondent, the fifth respondent filed W.P.(MD)No. 10098 of 2021 and at that point of time, the second respondent initiated enquiry and found that the patta had been wrongly mutated in the name of the petitioners. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that there is absolutely no illegality in the findings arrived at by the first respondent and the second respondent, cancelling the patta in the name of the petitioners and directing restoration of patta in the names of previous owners and further directing the aggrieved party to approach the competent civil Court. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. No doubt there is a dispute with regard to the tile and complex questions of this nature can certainly not be decided by the authorities. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments. However, the petitioners have been issued patta in the year 1996 and after a lapse of more than 25 years alone, the fifth respondent has chosen to question the said pattas issued, while making an application for patta to be mutated in the name of the fifth respondent. There is no infirmity in the order directing the parties to go before the competent civil Court. In this regard, the first respondent has not committed any error. However, the question to be answered is whether the first respondent could have proceeded to cancel the patta standing in the name of Mohamed Ghouse, Syed Ahamed, Jarina, and order of mutation in the revenue records. 12. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Edelweiss's case has been relied on. However, the question to be answered is whether the first respondent could have proceeded to cancel the patta standing in the name of Mohamed Ghouse, Syed Ahamed, Jarina, and order of mutation in the revenue records. 12. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Edelweiss's case has been relied on. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act and the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Rules, the Tahsildar is not empowered to adjudicate upon a “title dispute” and where there exists a dispute with respect to ownership of a land between the parties with respect to a patta entry, the correct procedure to be adopted is to approach a civil Court having competent jurisdiction. The entry records will be updated on the basis of the decree of the civil Court, upon adjudication. In T.R.Dinakaran's case, this Court dealing with a similar issue held that if any person is aggrieved over the entry made in the patta pass book in respect of any property over which he claims title and also possession, he can only file a suit for declaration of his right and thereafter, the entry in the patta pass book can be amended in accordance with any such declaration made by the competent civil court. Taking note of the fact that the patta was standing in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner claimed title over the property and equally, the respondents also claimed title, this Court held that the proper course was for the respondents therein to go before the competent civil court and file a civil suit for declaration. Even in the Division Bench of this Court in Vishwas Footweas Company's case, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to go into the disputed questions of title, at the time when an application for cancellation of patta is being considered. As far as this position is concerned, there cannot be a second opinion as to the limited jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to only find out prima facie as to the title and when the title is in dispute and there are rival claimants, he should refer the parties to civil Court for adjudication and depending upon the decree that may be passed by the civil Court, relevant entries in the patta could be effected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 13. 13. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, to this case, it is clear that when patta was admittedly mutated in the name of the petitioner way back in the year 1996, the proper approach of the authorities ought to have been to direct the fifth respondent to go before the competent civil Court and seek relief and subject to succeeding in the civil proceedings alone, the fifth respondent would be entitled to seek cancellation of patta in favour of the petitioner and mutation in the name of the fifth respondent. Both the first and second respondents have clearly gone into complex factual matrix and decided the rival claims as if they were exercising powers of a civil Court, which power can never be assumed by them. Therefore, the findings that the petitioner was entitled to of 4.04 Acres and remaining 60 cents belonged to fifth respondent is clearly perverse and amounts to excessive jurisdiction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2. 14. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the impugned orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.Kaa5/See.Ma. No.38/2023 as well as the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the second respondent in Ni.Mu.No.A3/479/2023 are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.